User Panel
Posted: 10/30/2004 9:08:48 PM EDT
I'm wondering what you guys say when someone asks you this question.
Do you: A) Tell them to go #### themselves or B) Make an attempt to rationally explain your point of view. I typically spend a great deal of time describing my point of view... sometimes with great effect, but often the person doesn't even want to hear my point of view. In the case when someone is truly trying to understand... what are some good examples that you've found work in the past. Also... ever once in a while when I find a gun hating liberal... I ask them if they've even fired the gun they're trying to ban. I then spend what I call "Take a lib to the Range" day and have found its the best way to convert the "non-believers". Just wondering what ideas the community has that also work. Thanks for the input. |
|
Aw not this shit again, I don't need one, I want one just like I don't really need a lot of stuff to live but i want them anyway. (I won't make anyone else pay for them)
|
|
I first make a clear distinction of Assualt rifle and "semi-automatic rifles that look like Assualt rifles" and try to explain that a "semi-automatic rifle that look like Assualt rifle" are similar to "semi-automatic hunting rifles" but with has less firepower on a round-by-round basis.
edit; If you were really talking about select-fire rifles, then I say it is guaranteed in 2nd Amendment and emphasize on that a law abiding citizen will NOT commit felony with any of these weapons. I also point out the steps involved in getting an NFA firearms. |
|
Nobody ever asks me that. |
|
|
First of all I tell them I don't recognize the distinction, Assault is an act, not an object.
I need to own an assault rifle so I'll never need to use it. Only after they've been outlawed will they be needed. |
|
My standard answer to the question "Why do you need more than one gun?"
a. Why does a golfer need more than one club? When somebody asked me "How many guns do you own?" I replied "Just me, or my wife included?" If somebody asked me why I own an assault rifle I might say "Because it's more fun to fondle than my wife." but ONLY if my wife isn't there to hear me say it. |
|
I start off by getting 100% of their attention by saying "Are you just asking or do you REALLY want to know my view point?"
At this point they are locked into listening to me. "So you NEED that Suburban (or whatever vehicle they drive?) over there?... and the Constitution NEVER says anything about specific rifles. Also what ever happened to a free country? I dont NEED one, I WANT one." |
|
No one's ever asked me using that term. I do try to explain that semi-automatic rifles are:
- based on 100 year old technology, not some "space age killing machine" that is a recent occurence - more fun to shoot (give a newbie a single shot bolt gun first and watch how bored they get) - particularly with ARs, I point out how they're easier for women with smaller arms to shoot because of the collapsible stock |
|
It's usually not worth the effort trying to explain someone why one would need an assault rifle, ESPECIALLY with anti-gun liberals.
Depending on the person, I would do either. If they are close, I would try to rationally explain to them the reason we want these rifles. If it's someone I could care less about, I would blow them off and ignore them completely. It is pointless arguing with a liberal because they are brainwashed to the point that if you spoon feed them the facts, they will still disagree. You're not going to change someone's views when they are so fixated on their position and completely ignore the opposing argument. It would be easier to print handouts to these kinds of people, than to waste my breath trying to explain assault weapons. |
|
I have a friend who keeps asking me why I have firearms. He's into paintball so I just ask why he has a paintball gun seeing how he plays about an eighth as often as I go shooting. I just tell others it's a hobby and I like them.
|
|
Only one person has asked me that.
After explaining the difference between what I had and a Assault rifle, and him and his wife firing the two AR's with the evil Lug and Flash Hider I had out at the range the first thing the women said was "I Want one Honey" to her husband. |
|
I usually say something like this:
"You know, when you ask somebody a question like that, it's like asking how many guns they own, or how much money they have in the bank, which is really none of your business. But, I don't want to be impolite, so the reason I have an assault weapon is the same reason a dog licks his dick --- BECAUSE HE CAN. Does THAT answer your question?" The usual response is silence. |
|
some of the guys at work ask me this once in awhile
I just smile at them |
|
Amen to that. Very well said. |
|
|
Assault Rifle is a political term. They are called semi auto sporting rifles
|
|
no there not. "semi-auto rifle" -would be correct....this way they cant try and trap you into the "no-sporting purpose" argument. I do agree that "Assault Rifle is a political term." and a damn effective one at that- to where the owners of said rifles dont even know regognize that they are being duped. As a matter of fact Im kinda appalled at how light our AR15.com members are at these arguments and counter arguments. It seems we all need a course of instuction in why we can have these rifles and how the 2nd applies to you. |
|
|
Um for when the SHTF. I try not to talk to anyone who dosen't understand this.
|
|
7 words. Very good way to end an argument as a closing statement! Well said GIJoe |
|
|
|
I usually say, "Why do YOU need an assault rifle?" And they look at me strangely and walk away.
|
|
I love telling my fellow officers that I shoot AR-15's and AK-47's. The first thing they ask me...Is it full auto? Or even better from the cops "in the know"....I can convert it to full auto by filing down a part or two!
Anyhow, it's an attempt at educating my co-workers. I successfully with help from other gunbuffs got several officers to actually purchase AR's this year. I think it's working. |
|
Kick them in the nutz too. Then shoot em in the head. |
|
|
You kick em in the nuts and they will just keep coming. You shoot them in the knees, they will fall but they will get right back up and keep coming. There is only one way to deal with these monsters, aim for the head, just shoot them in the ****ing head. |
||
|
I ask them why they need...
their muscle car their makeup kit their __________ fill in the blank w/whatever it is that they would NOT compromise on living w/o, but TECHNICALLY isn't "needed" for them to live (in ideal situations). Shoe on the other foot usually works. They tend to come up w/ "well my muscle car wasn't designed to kill people" to which I reply neither were airplanes, but I know over 3000 people who would dispute that claim if they could. Neither was my Sanford Uni-Ball Onyx pen, but I bet if someone attacked me I could kill them with it. And I know I could kill a LOT of folks w/your muscle car were I so inclined. So your beef is that objects DESIGNED specifically to kill are bad. Want the government to outlaw any sort of blade including box cutters, scapels, xacto knives and kitchen knives both butter and steak/paring etc...? Thjen docs couldn't operate, and a lot of folks would die, but that's okay, right, because everyone would be safe from bladed weaponry? Get a clue. More or less. |
|
When the time comes for me to actually need one, it'll be a little too freakin' late to go shopping, don't you think?
|
|
You're absolutely correct. Shoot them in the head... THEN kick them in the nutz. |
|||
|
Ask Them, Do They NEED to Be Free.
With Out A Gun, How are they Going to Protect Their Freedom. It Is About Freedom, NOT why do You Need an Assault Weapon. If you Tell them you are going to make them your Slave, How will they Stop You. If They say Call 911, the government. You, could then tell them, How Can I help You, I'm from the government. If the Government has ALL the Guns, We Will Be come Slaves. If they said that would never happen in the United States, Ask them if they Saw 9/11 Happening. If the Pilots On 9/11 were Free To carry Guns like in Isreal, Would 9/11 Happen. It Is About Freedom to Protect Your Life. It Is Not About Guns, It Is About Protecting Freedom. Asked them, Do They Need To Be Free. Just Don't be surprise if they say, No, they Do not want to be Free. www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=288804 United States Of America________________________ www.LEAP.cc/ -- www.Cures-not-wars.org/ Truth Will Liberate Earth. Law EnForcement Against Prohibition www.RKBA.org/antis/hci-masterAllege 1993 feinstein/hci PRETEXT for TOTAL Gun Freedom Confiscation. www.digitalangelcorp.com/ Revelation 13:18 BAN Human Power ID-GPS-MONEY Implant Micro-chip.Patent 5,629,678 FIXED BAYONETS -- FORWARD |
|
|
|
"In case some of you assholes here at work piss me off"
-----anonymous postal worker |
|
Again, I tell them it is not an assault weapon. It is merely a rifle, a tool, an object of my affection and I also tell them if they call it an assault weapon one more time, I will hit 'em over the head with it
|
|
I'm sick of the age old argument of trying to "justify" why I own something or why I do something to appease someone in politically correct terms. Anyone that far out in left field isn't worth giving the time of day in my opinion. I could care less what label is put on my military type semiautomatics - I didnt buy them so I could sit around humming hippie love songs.
One of my pet peeves is law enforcement officers who do not understand the difference between a Title II weapon and a nonregulated "normal" firearm. I was in a law enforcement course on identifying full autos, AOW's, and SBR/SBS - by an idiot who didnt know what he was talking about. If I remember right, he though his personal hunting gun fell under title II and had to be registered with a form 4- I'm not fond of people feeding law enforcement types BAD information when it comes to legalities. Ignorance abounds everywhere - whether its actual Class III weapons or what someone thinks of a semiautomatic clone of a military gun. |
|
I don't own any assault rifles. I do own some rifles with that I use for sporting purposes.
Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
I want to "assault" something. |
|
|
Here's one for the Kerry crowd which says he is not against firearms and shows him with his geese, ducks or whatever and $10,000. shotgun. "First off, it's not an assault weapon. But, I want to have a simple, practical weapon, not overly affected by weather. I live in FL and prefer stainless and fiberglas to wood and "the finest blued steel." Also, (here it comes), the sight of Kerry out killing innocent animals horrifies and sickens me, and I wouldn't even want a hunting weapon. So, I won't own one."
Too bad someone of stature didn't come up with the hunting argument. Kerry would have had to shut up with his "act" trying to woo gun owners. Then the dopey hunters would not have warmed to him thinking "he's not after our guns, he's one of us." |
|
I have a pat answer, "Who would you rahter have them, me or only the badguys? If you outlaw them then only the badguys will have them."
Best comeback is "But if you outlaw them no one will have them." Reply is simply "Yea and you can't buy illegal drugs either." Nuff said. Tj |
|
Ask them to define the term "Assault rifle". Don't put them on the defensive. Then go with it when they give the wrong answer.
Some people Can be educated. Or just kick 'em in the nutz Rip |
|
If I'm asked this by a Liberal, I usually reply something along the lines of "What will do you the most good when Ashcroft's goons come for you in the middle of the night, an AR or a lawbook?"
The looks this gets are priceless... |
|
I don't "need" one.
I don't "need" to take in dogs from rescue groups either. I don't need them, but they need me. |
|
The mindset of your average, garden variety Democrat/Liberal/Leftist is to keep the good of the whole of society as the primary goal. To that end, I will dispense with the standard pro-freedom arguments that always fall on deaf ears, and argue profreedom from a statist point of view.
Of course, the inherent danger is that our shooting hobbies will be used to forward a statist agenda, instead of counter it. However, the goal of this post is to make the typical antigun statist take pause and think about how the presence of guns are good for society as a whole, has no tangible negative effect, how gun control is bad for society, or has no tangible benefit for society. Assault Weapons. To argue for an Assault Weapons Ban, one first must be able to define what an assault weapon is. The 1994 AWB defined an AW as: "a semiautomatic firearm that can accept a detachable magazine and has more than one of several specific military features, such as folding/telescoping stocks, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, or grenade launchers." However, there has been considerable talk about enhancing the definition of assault weapon, because the original ban wasn't good enough. It wasn't good enough because law abiding, peaceable citizens have been able to buy weapons that lacked features such as the bayonet lug and a collapsable stock. Because of the AWB, hundreds of thousands of people who never would have taken an interest in the weapons now own one or more of them with no discernable harm to society. It cannot be argued that ownership of a so-called "assault weapon" by the ordinary law abiding noncriminal poses any kind of danger or does any harm to society. The National Instant Check System has been tasked with weeding out the criminals, underage and those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Once the law is made, the same thing doesn't need to be made illegal multiple times. The categories of prohibited purchasers were created in 1968, and advances in technology were utilized in 1994 to make the process much more efficient and consistent. The AWB was NOT tasked with keeping weapons out of the hands of those who have no business with guns. Conclusion: Assault weapons do not tangibly harm society, and banning them does not tangibly benefit society. However, the buearocracy involved in policing them takes resources away from the real causes of crime, which IS bad. Concealed Carry. Many people will think of criminals carrying weapons, when concealed carry is mentioned. However, criminal possession of weapons is already prohibited, so legalizing concealed carry for law abiding people will not mean that criminals are authorized to carry. Criminals by their very definition do not willingly obey the law. Law abiding people by their very nature do not commit crimes. Thus, permitting law abiding people to carry with them discrete means of self defense has no tangible harm to society. Since criminals do tangible harm to society, anything real or conceptual (ie, unprovable, since statistics aren't kept on crimes that didn't happen) that allows law abiding citizens to reduce that threat via deterrant and force cannot be bad. Laws that prohibit people from carrying the toolos to defend themselves against criminal attack are immoral and inappropriate. Closing the Gun Show loophole. This ostensibly is a good thing, however, keeping in mind that criminals do not obey laws, making it illegal to conduct a private transfer of firearms without a background check would have no effect upon criminal activity. The same problems - that criminals either steal guns or buy from a black market after getting rejected in a NICS check - would still exist. There is no tangible societal benefit to closing the gun show loophole because it would not havce the advertised effect. It would simply be ignored by criminals. Gun Registration. Any benefit gained from registering guns would be far outweighed by the economic costs of the program. The benefit would be that all registered gun owners would be known, and all registered guns would be known. The issues would be that a majority of gun owners would simply fail to comply with the required registration. Forcing compliance would bring active defiance, which would mean bloodshed and paperwork. Requiring gun registration would cause much more harm than good, on a societal AND personal level. Oh, did I mention that the criminals would ignore the law, and be ignored by the law, in the haste to get the law abiding people registered? That can't be good for society. You might also note that in the statist's quest to create a sustainable society, they are turning to controls which seem good, but have doomed previous societies to failure. They are turning away from the lack of government enforced control that made this country great. Even their ideas of a 'right' is in fact a civil right, which is granted by a society that has the resources to grant it. They don't really acknowledge the idea of natural rights, because it doesn't have relevance in a social context. They embrace certain amendments of the Bill of Rights, but not because the right exists for its own purpose (ie, the benefit/pleasure of the individual). Don't make them play your game. Beat them at theirs. |
|
I explain to people that I don't need a reason to express a right granted in the Bill of Rights, the way a hunter must, as there is no amendment to the Constitution that gives you the right to hunt, that is a priviledge that the founding fathers did not feel was important enough to protect.
|
|
i really like what his guy has to say. but i got one so if any one comes in my house i can protect myself. and they are fun as hell to shoot, and cool looking bbr |
|
|
No offense, but the BOR grants NO rights at all. It simply enumerates rights that pre-existed the Constitution, and forbids the FedGov from interfering with the exercise of those rights. Your rights DO NOT originate with the Constitution or the BOR. Your rights pre-existed those documents |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.